When Climate Policy Changes: AEC Leadership's Mindset Shift

Climate policy shifts happen fast—but construction leadership in change management is what separates winning AEC firms from reactive ones. In this bonus episode of Activating Curiosity™, Ryan and Laura Steinbrink (CEO, Emerald Built Environments) dive into the mindset shifts and industry transformation needed when policy changes overnight. Discover the strategic framework for navigating regulatory uncertainty and building organizational resilience.

This conversation challenges a common assumption: that policy drives action. Instead, Laura reframes the moment, showing the recent EPA decision was legal, not scientific, and that progress is still driven by markets, communities, and leadership.

Together, they unpack what happens when policy creates “whiplash” and why the opportunity for AEC leaders isn’t to wait, but to lead.

From local climate action plans to market demands, this episode explores how leaders can maintain clarity, reduce risk, and make smarter decisions in an environment where regulations may change, but reality does not.

This isn’t just about sustainability in construction, it’s about leading change with confidence when the rules keep shifting.

What you’ll learn:

• Why policy shifts don’t remove the need for sustainability
• The gap between legal decisions and scientific reality
• How local markets keep driving change regardless of regulation
• Ways to reduce risk through smarter building strategies 
• Why uncertainty creates opportunity for long-term leaders

Who this is for:
Construction leaders, developers, and AEC professionals navigating policy uncertainty, sustainability, and change leadership in a rapidly evolving industry.

Chapters
3:19 - What Changed: The EPA Decision Explained
5:04 - How We Got Here: The Origins of Climate Policy
7:07 - What Actually Changed (and What Didn’t)
10:34 - Why the Built Environment Is at the Center of This
15:09 - Where Real Action Is Happening: Local Climate Plans
25:00 - Short-Term Decisions vs Long-Term Reality
31:08 - AEC’s Opportunity: Leading Through Uncertainty

Guest
Laura Steinbrink is CEO of Emerald Built Environments, helping organizations align sustainability and business performance in the built environment.

Her work spans manufacturing, finance, non-profits, and government, focused on risk, cost savings, and results. She serves on the boards of USGBC Ohio, Entrepreneurs’ Organization of Cleveland, and Greater Cleveland Partnership.

Recommendations:

Dark Waters Info 

Update: Lawsuit Filed 

Overcast Innovations
Helping project teams coordinate building systems earlier for more predictable outcomes.

New Lyfe Accounting
Free Diagnostic ($500 value) for Activating Curiosity Listeners by NLA, to help your financial goals

Connective Consulting Group
Helping construction leaders simplify change, strengthen trust, and move forward with clarity.

Disclaimer: This post contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase, I may receive a commission at no extra cost to you.

Transcript

Copy Transcript Copied

Laura 0:58

The rescinding that occurred had nothing to do with the science. There was some mention of science, but any scientist will tell you that it is science is more clear today than it was in 2009 about what causes climate change and where we are on the continuum. So what happened was a rescinding on technical legal parameters, which that's what we have lawyers in courts to deal with. The science is very clear. I think in the United States, you know, the AEC industry is still one of those industries that is very regional. Sure, you've got construction firms and architecture firms that work across state lines or have offices in multiple states, but at the end of the day, your labor force is regional, your supplies are regional, and communities, like I was saying, they've got their climate action plans and they they know what's happening.

Ryan 2:17

We're going to actually have a guest to come in and talk about a topic that sort of came and went in the last couple months with so many things that are that are happening in the world. On February 12th of this year, the current administration rescinded the EPA's endangerment findings, which was put in place in 2009. So I wanted to have a conversation with someone who was involved with sustainability and thinking about climate change, really someone that's working within the AEC industry. So the guest today is going to be Laura Steinbrink. She is the CEO of Emerald Built Environments and located in Cleveland, Ohio. And the conversation that we'll have will really sort of lay the framework of how did we get to 2009? What happened in between 2009 and 2026, and then how we should be thinking about this as individuals and as communities as well as an industry. This became important to me because of where I grew up and a lot of the things that were happening and the way we thought about sort of the environment as kids in that region and just a lot of the plants, the emissions that were happening, chemicals going into the groundwater. And it just sort of stuck with me. And seeing this rescision was something where I started to recognize, like, hey, we need to have a conversation of like, how can we address the environment when we're talking about something that is one planet with eight billion different perspectives and views to understand like how can we move forward when policies are constantly changing region to region, when we really need to have a world that is completely interdependent on one another's actions and inactions. Yeah, I'm glad to have you. I'm glad you're willing to have the conversation. So on February 12th of this year, 2026, right, the current administration officially rescinded the EPA's endangerment finding. And I think before, you know, Laura, we go into what that means moving forward, if we could just take a step back and kind of understand how did we even get to that 2009 finding?

Laura 4:50

Right. Well, Ryan, you know, they say all politics is local. And it started actually back in the 1990s when uh the states were upset about car emissions, and they started a whole process in the courts to fight the car companies around emissions. And 1999 was the first Massachusetts case that ultimately got to the Supreme Court in what 2007, when the Supreme Court came down in a 5-4 decision and said, yes, EPA, carbon dioxide is a pollutant and it is covered under the Clean Air Act. And you now need to go figure out if the science proves that you should be regulating it. So Supreme Court in 2007 and then 2009, the EPA comes out with the engagement finding because they looked at the science, and the science said, yes, for sure, this is causing a contributor to climate change, and therefore we have the ability to regulate.

Ryan 5:52

So as part of the Clean Air Act, which was preceding all of that finding, right? That was part of what the 1970s, even with the founding of the EPA.

Laura 6:03

Right, right. And the whole debate was whether or not the EPA had legal jurisdiction to regulate for climate, right? Because that's a broader issue than just the boundaries of the United States. It was a global issue. And ultimately, you know, the Supreme Court came to understand that Massachusetts is a sovereign state. Now, there were other states involved in that cases and cities, right? They said, you know, these are sovereign governing bodies in areas, and Massachusetts successfully demonstrated that rising sea levels was a threat to its sovereignty. And therefore, you know, that that was one of the abilities to get the legal foundation, right? And then the scientific foundation was the science that came through the EPA.

Ryan 6:52

Yeah. So it was a several decade kind of journey getting to that point with the emissions of automobiles, lawsuits happening. Like you said, all things are kind of local. So that that probably started with states joining upon other states. Yep. Um, you know, going into those cases. You mentioned the time frame in which it took from the original case to getting to the 2007 Massachusetts case. That then that then there was a time period between that 07 and that the actual EPA releasing their findings in 2009 and formally sort of being, hey, this is where you know the EPA is now able to regulate those things, right? Is that correct?

Laura 7:33

Yep.

Ryan 7:33

Okay. So obviously this, you know, it wasn't a one-time event. It's been a conversation that's been ongoing through the decades. We hit 2009 then with the EPA endangerment findings. What then sort of happened from that time period to today? Like what what was sort of happening from, I guess we'll start in maybe policies or even in the legal side, and then and then we can kind of start getting into industries and maybe the communities, like you said, getting back to localities.

Laura 8:05

So, I mean, I think a lot of things happened between 2009, which are directly and indirectly related to the EPA's finding. But in short, one thing that happened was the EPA thus started to regulate carbon dioxide and other methane and other greenhouse gases through the channels which they had. They were able to through the regulating industry. Another thing that happened with respect to utilities in that time was that the courts started to say, when, for example, a state or a city was suing the utility, that no, you can't sue the utility here in the courts. The EPA has already decided that those emissions that you're arguing about are covered under the Clean Air Act. The EPA just needs to regulate utilities, right? So the courts then gave the EPA broader scope from the automobiles to apply this regulation. So you've got now more regulation about greenhouse gases tied back to this EPA endangerment finding and the Supreme Court case in 2007. Also, in that timeframe, the world woke up to climate change and greenhouse gases, and consumers started wanting lower emitting products. And yeah, so um, so also in the EV market took off. And, you know, it's it's been a slow, slow rise. But from 2009 to today, the infrastructure is in place with like it was not before. And there are many models of cars that you can buy, whereas before there was one or two, and just the world has changed and come to understand the impact of greenhouse gases on localities. Like the weather is weird, right? Right, right. And not just weird, but destructive. And everybody knows what actually is going on here.

Ryan 10:49

So it's so during this time, we're seeing you're mentioning sort of the capitalist side of it, where our demand as citizens, as individuals, shifted based off of what we were seeing and feeling, not so much even what the policies were sort of being put in place. And I always think about it from this perspective, it's one planet, eight billion uh views and perspectives on these things, but you're kind of describing, like, hey, what we're seeing is the shift post 2009. I think it was even before then. I remember was it cash for clunkers was put out? I don't know if it was just one state. I think it was done by the federal government to get vehicles that have been on the road for a number of years because they were necessarily of the right quality or one gas usage, but even just from uh an emission standpoint. So it is, you're mentioning this, like, hey, it's a it's there's individual choice involved in this situation, but the capital market starts to shift. We're seeing more EVs, we're seeing hybrids being addressed. And who wants to pay for more gas at any point in a time frame? But what were you seeing, since you you know we focus on the built environment and those sides too, kind of besides when we think about greenhouse emissions, are there any other things that were sort of coming into play beyond the automobile as it related to other industries and the moves they were making, or whether it was action or inaction that was sort of being taken during this time period?

Laura 12:27

Well, I mean, I think because of the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, the 1970s, the whole movement, Earth Day starts up back then, people come to understand that their health is at risk from pollutants, whether they're coming through the air, the water, things that touch them, like the fabrics and the like. And they're coming to understand the science that clearly says that when you have healthy environments, indoor environments, outdoor environments, people thrive. There's they're better at work, they learn better, they have less health considerations that come up. And so therefore they cost less to if they're relying on the system to take care of them. But generally speaking, like this is our health that we're dealing with here. And so it's not just automobiles and greenhouse gases, it's all things that companies come to understand, you know, we're reputationally at risk if we're dumping bad stuff into the air, into the water, into the whatever. We are reputationally at risk if we are putting chemicals into the clothing that we're selling to children. Remember the pajamas that caught fire, the Chinese pajamas. I mean, you know, like our pillows, our mattresses, our carpets, our everything. Um, and so the built environment industry went through the same shift where product people came to understand that there was another way to make product that was less harmful to the environment, either in the way it was made or how it presented itself in use, like less off-gassing of materials inside a building. And that when they innovated, they made money. And then you've got the stock markets that are showing you that companies that invest in sustainable products and innovation make more money over the long haul than those that do not.

Ryan 14:23

Yeah. Yeah. So manufacturers, like like you said, they're starting to make the shift during this time period and and even before it, we know kind of some of the things that were happening with you know, when USGBC came out and lead here in the in the States prior to to these actions being taken in the court, to the to the actual findings being released. So, like you said, off gassing. Like who who doesn't want to be in a space that is healthier for you? I don't think any any of us want to go back through, you know, asbestos and all of the things that we maybe grew up around. And at the time we just didn't, you know, we didn't know until it takes years of data and kind of going back and and seeing what's going on because you mentioned kind of the Clean Air Act, but even, you know, fresh water. I grew up in Southeast Ohio, and anybody wants to watch the movie Dark Waters, like see what happened down there with chemical plants that were going on, where basically water was being poisoned, groundwater and everything else. And and it took decades to kind of come to this realization that people were getting ill from this. So you wouldn't do it to yourself. So you you would, as you're saying, like as a society, individuals, we are starting to make those decisions to to demand that something be done beyond just policy making. Right. So and that gets us sort of to you know, what happened this year, which I know wasn't necessarily like a surprise. It kind of started with an executive order on day one and went through some things that the EPA kind of reviewed, and then they put the full recision, the official announcement recision was was made on February 12th of this year. That said, like now, now we're where we are with this policy changing. And in the States, we have every four years a new perspective and policies, ongoing court cases from both sides. But I like something that you said, which is all things are sort of local and our environments are local, while we're really under, you know, interdependent on one another as a planet to be making some of those choices you're saying. How are you, you know, from the sustainability expert side and and the way you're working and the things that you're seeing, while policies might give us whiplash, like what are some things that you're seeing that that are still working, are still not necessarily maybe not as impacted by this resion?

Laura 17:02

Well, so yeah, all politics is local. And one of the things that happened within the last four to six years, because of grant money the EPA had in order to help further its reduction of greenhouse gas emissions was a requirement that municipalities or government entities that applied for funds had to have a climate action plan. So guess what? From cities to counties to states across the United States, there are hundreds and thousands of climate action plans where the local communities have come to understand what their specific risks are, right? Some are more flood prone, some are more hurricane prone, some are more fire prone, tornadoes, hurricane, you know, all of it. But communities now know what their risk factors are. They've done a greenhouse gas inventory of some sort, and some are more sophisticated than others, but they are on their own path to figure out what they need to do to protect themselves. And now that the EPA has done what the EPA has done, they've invited a flood of lawsuits that are just gonna happen because no one really understands am I regulated, am I not regulated, am I gonna try to skirt this regulation or not? And then the cities and the communities are gonna do what they did before, which is to say, hey, we are at risk because X, Y, and Z is happening. And off we go again into court cases.

Ryan 18:28

Yeah. So I mean, they have the policies, you know, the policies existing during that time period. There's adjustments being made from, like you said, municipalities. Like the question or the line seems to be like regulated or not. But then it's this whole area that you're talking about, which is like it doesn't matter whether the regulations here or there, because the reality is what we feel. It's what we're seeing, like you're saying, like flood to hurricanes, tornadoes, name it. Um, you know, I had the unfortunate situation in California where like I remember waking up to an orange sky because of fires that were happening, not just in California, but Western Canada, all the way down through the Pacific Northwest. So um, you walk outside and you're walking through thick ash and you can't breathe, and you it's it's pitch black. Like no one cares what the policy is at that moment. It doesn't, it only matters what those regional groups are gonna do. So do you maybe, maybe it's too soon, but like it seems like a lot of municipalities won't be making a lot of those changes because of their communities, those that will be impacted if they do reaper's course. Is that something you're thinking about and seeing?

Laura 19:46

Well, I think so. If we think about it, like what's gonna happen to cars and the car companies, they operate in a global economy. So if the United States goes a little sideways and decides we don't care, make whatever kind of car you want here. Well, first of all, back to talking about what consumers want. Consumers are clear, like we're not gonna what are you know, what if they decide we don't need seatbelts anymore? I mean, that's kind of like the same thing, right? Like, like, no, no, we I I don't want the car in front of me to be blowing out nasty fumes and emissions. No, we don't, nobody wants that. So no one's gonna buy that car if they just reverse course. But you know, they operate in a global economy. So what are they gonna do? Have the dirty cars in the United States and then the clean cars that they sell everywhere else? Because as fast as the United States seems to be rewinding its federal policies around climate and emissions, the world is pushing out country by country its own regulations. So it's it's just bizarre. I mean, small countries, island nations, like they're all doing it.

Ryan 21:00

They're all doing it. Well, and it's I think about just like even with the pandemic, it doesn't there, you can't create a boundary of something like this. It is one, again, one planet. So we can have all these ideas and these regulations across different places. And while it might help reverse because more more doing, you know, better for the environment than others who are, like you said, it is the global economies there, the global impact of this, of each, you know, maybe kind of whiplash point that's happening in our country. But at the same time, I just think like because this feels so large, like I've always said, the climate actions and inactions are can feel so huge to every individual who wants to get involved and not quite sure. Like you're saying, like, hey, these manufacturers are, you know, you don't have to go to court, but the manufacturers probably aren't going to build one car for country A versus country B versus country C. Like they're not, they're not going to change their production line in order to adhere to multiple different necessarily regulations, which I think comes into this something you said earlier, is like the state regulations. Like California had a very strict rules and policies put in place versus another state that doesn't. Car companies were, again, at that point, Laura, correct me if I'm wrong, like they weren't building for 50 different states either, basically.

Laura 22:32

No, they're policy. I mean, they they might have started a line that's gonna serve California, and they have nine other lines that aren't, and they know which then they like, but they eventually have to move the lines, right? So they go from one to nine eventually, and then all the cars that roll off, you know, can come. Like I don't know specifically what they did, right? I don't want to suggest that, but we know what happened over time. There was, you know, car California starts all of the regulations, the paint industry, um, you know, with their they were big in for any of the sealants, adhesive sealants, paint coatings, too, right? They're carb standard. And then now everybody just does it. So the same thing. But you know, yesterday the federal government sued California over its auto regulations. So they're trying to get California undone. I mean, that'll take forever, right?

Ryan 23:21

In the courts, but so in that case, it's it's the federal government government changing a policy and saying the states don't have the sovereignty to to do these regulations to put them into place. Which again, like that's it depends on the argument or which, you know, which policy you want to put in place of which which it's federal and which it's state. But again, in this case, it it's very difficult to see it as the county line to the state lines aren't barriers for what happens. happens via via these gases, off gases to greenhouse gases or anything that that we're talking about. So I'm interested in having the conversation because I think this is what in order to help people kind of just step back and be like, what can I be doing? What what action can I take when I feel like I'm not making any impact when there's all of this whiplash. So part of it is is like, yes, being from that built environment, like you're saying, like what should we really be thinking about as as an industry, as individuals, you know, in our own community, that while all this whiplash is happening, things that we can still be doing and thinking about regardless of that policy.

Laura 25:48

Right. So I I be smart, right? All of us just have to be smart and understand what is true. So we know that for buildings specifically, buildings that are more energy efficient cost less to operate. The equipment that one would buy to create an energy efficient building can cost a little bit more at first. But if you fully understand the opportunity with the system, like for example, geothermal, right? Geothermal is one of the systems that it's an it's actual infrastructure that you're putting in that you can build on, you can leverage it for other uses around adjacent to it. So if you have new development coming or you've got a few buildings on a campus, right? Geothermal's awesome. By the way, also still on the credit scheme for the federal government for taxes. So you still get federal tax credit for geothermal. So it's one of the systems out there. But okay, it costs a little bit more. But when you understand what you're getting, you're investing in the future, right? So if we're just smart, if our owners and developers and builders are smart, they put forward buildings that are going to cost less, that have good roof, good insulation, good materials on the inside that are going to be healthier for people. They are more durable, they last longer, right? When we build smart, we're setting ourselves up to mitigate risk. And there's a lot of study and research done like the whole idea of envelope commissioning where they're looking at the envelope and where the windows and the roof lines and everything comes together and finding leaks and where's air going to get through and where's water going to get through. And people are commissioning their building envelopes now, right? As part of a risk mitigation strategy. That just assures you have a good product. So you just we just got to be smart about it and understand what people need and want and and have a long I'll have a long-term view. Like we yes I realize we have to make projects pencil and we have to be able to afford the first cost. But when you think about the important things early, you are not dealing with unanticipated costs later. You're just building it into the the program from the beginning.

Ryan 28:02

Yeah. Well I like that you said a long you know a long view which is what all of the work that needs to be put into place in order to make sure that we have a a livable you know planet. Situations are constantly changing. So I think back to 1970 to even now it's like it's not the same. Like the rules of the 1970 1980s shouldn't be the same as 2025 as we're writing policies and thinking it's it's that long view and same thing when we're designing like a building doesn't last one year, two years. We're talking about buildings that we want you know 50 plus years and things are going to change, things are going to shift. So you mentioned a lot of great things to sort of think about how we're designing but it kind of it comes back to this short-term view of saving costs today to pay the price tomorrow of what's coming and back to this communities funding may not be available in the future for building in certain areas and regions in those communities because they've made adjustments you know based off of this policy change because hey you can't get insurance. So you can't finance it and because you can't get insurance like you're not you're not going to be able to build. And that comes back into you know materials that we're thinking about today have a cost, but tomorrow have a greater cost. So I it just kind of got me into that thinking of like that long-term view is not just like it's a price to rebuild, it's a price to ensure during the time period in which the building exists or whatever in that community, right? It isn't just a today cost. Right. I appreciate kind of the dialogue I know it's like this may feel like hey it's about automobiles and things like that. But with the greenhouse gases like we have seen a lot of changes in the last you know 30 plus years in the build environment companies making those shifts we've seen innovative solutions for like you said, you know, the mechanical systems to the building envelopes to how we look at treating windows or to insulation and codes. A lot of the changes kind of happen even before the codes happen because codes take a while longer to to react and and get into place as well as just what what we're seeing in in our environment not just the build environment, the environment in which we live in the community. What haven't I asked you then Laura that you think listeners should be thinking about as it relates to some of these whiplash moments in policy making not just in the States but as we see it across the planet. What would you what would you recommend or actions that they could probably be taking?

Laura 30:51

Yeah so one of the things that I think is important to know and to say state in this conversation is the rescinding that occurred had nothing to do with the science. Yeah there were some mention of science but any scientist will tell you that it is science is more clear today than it was in 2009 about what causes climate change and and where we are on the continuum. So what happened was a rescinding on technical legal parameters, which that's what we have lawyers in courts to deal with the science is very clear. Also what is happening I think in the United States, you know, the AEC industry is still one of those industries that is very regional. Sure you've got construction firms and architecture firms that work across state lines or have offices in multiple states, but at the end of the day it's your labor force is regional your supplies are regional and communities like I was saying like they've got their climate action plans and they they know what's happening. They are convening there are local organizations that the AEC community can plug into the AIA has the 2030 challenge cash ray has ways to facilitate the engineers you've got stormwater groups or water conservation groups out there and there's business groups the B Corp community there's conscious capitalism community there's lots of communities out there who are talking about business as a force for good they talk about how do you talk about sustainability and green building in the era of deregulation and the focus on risk mitigation, on cost savings, on future proofing your building you know, all of these things that are true and need to happen.

Ryan 32:40

So there are supports for leaders who understand or want to figure out how to navigate there there are supports out there because it's through community that change is made ultimately I mean just the way you ended and the way you started was hey this this rescinding of the EPA's endangerment finding was a legal action put in place back in 2009 based off a court case in 2007 but rescinded today from a legal perspective of who could regulate. Regulation can sometimes feel like forced compliance and what you just ended with is become that willing participant and supporting your local communities to the actions that are being put in place those steps are far more valuable than any policy. Like anything that's put in place through through the legal forces. So I'm glad you stated it that way because it just makes me think like where no one wants to be told you brought up seatbelts. Nobody wanted that back in the 80s now who wouldn't but today those things that we can start to do as it relates to like you like you said within our communities to take those actions joining those groups looking at the the different work done by the associations I think can can be a great great place to start. So I appreciate you kind of framing it in that way. Before we wrap up here Laura anything else that that you'd like to share?

Laura 34:09

Yeah so I mean Ryan it's what's coming up for me right now when I was in high school I was on the debate team and we used to have this strategy. I forget what we ultimately called the strategy but it was like a we would have two ideas that we would put forward and then at the very last minute we'd say yep never mind that one we do we don't care anymore after they spent like all of their time talking about it. We're like this is the one we care about. Here's here's what also is going on in the world right now is AI and we know that there are data centers being built all over the United States and we have a major energy crisis coming upon us. Yes. Right. And it is like that tsunami wave we know it's coming we don't know when and how it's going to hit us and how bad it's going to be but boy it's coming. And you know who some of the biggest solution providers are going to be for the rest of us out there is the AEC community, especially the engineers. Right. And so starting to think about how you excel in this world of consulting your clients, I think this is a huge opportunity for the AEC community to reinvent itself as solution providers forward thinking we are your resource we can help this community figure out how to sustain itself with energy absent the the unstable grid or you know because the grid instability is going to be everywhere soon. And so what's the opportunity? I mean I think turn the lemons into lemonade and let's figure out how to win.

Ryan 35:39

Yeah.

Laura 35:40

Make money make money and create strength at the same time, right?

Ryan 35:44

Yeah. I mean we have an opportunity sometimes we think we we don't like who what can I control in this situation? But you just described it so well as we have an opportunity as an industry to to pause for a moment and look at those things that we can actually you know go out and help our local communities like you said and then those regions as we're designing planning and building the infrastructure that the world relies on on a daily basis. So I think that's a powerful place to to leave it. I do I do think uh Laura this is you know probably just part one of our conversation because I think we do need to get into some of those bigger things like you said the grid and the data centers and things that are starting starting to happen. So definitely get you back back on to activating curiosity. But I appreciate you being willing to come on and kind of have this dialogue today.

Laura 36:31

Thanks Ryan it was great to be here.

Ryan 36:33

Yeah thank you. That's the episode with Laura Steinbrink, CEO of Emerald Built Environments. I hope you enjoyed the conversation like I said at the beginning this was the bonus episode where I really wanted to talk about something that was important to me to kind of hit home. So until next time I hope you stay well I hope you continue to look at those areas that you want to focus on pause for a moment reflecting on them in a little different way than you had before. I hope you continue to activate your curiosity as well as activating curiosity then other is brought to you by Connecticut or Curiosity building experience if you enjoyed today's episode don't forget to subscribe podcast network helping more curiosity interested in becoming a guest for a sponsor activate curiosity.com for more details. Until next time keep leading with curiosity